RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GES SYSTEM AND DISTRIBUTION OF AQUATIC BIRDS IN
AN URBAN RIVER ENVIRONMENT
Fiona MATSUSHIMA (Kyoto University)*Toshikazu MATSUSHIMA (Kyoto University)
Yoshimi HAGIHARA (DPRI, Kyoto University)

1. INTRODUCTION
Kamo River is an urban river which runs through Kyoto City in Western Japan. Historically it is prone toflooding and after a severe flooding disaster in 1935 a series of river works were implemented. These works
include straightening and deepening of the river channel, laying of concrete banking, laying of artificial river
beds and the creation of a series of weirs. The effects of these works on the river environment are a key
consideration of this research which was undertaken to investigate the relationship between aquatic bird
communities in Kamo River and local geo, eco and socio (GES) environment systems. As Kamo River is themain urban river in Kyoto City it may be considered a focal point for local residents. In this study the aquaticbird communities were chosen as being one of the central ecological factors of the river ecosystem. The
objective of this research is to clarify the following three issues of aquatic bird species: (1) structural factors of
their habitat, (2) distribution characteristics and (3) feelings of riverside residents towards them. The above threeresolutions create some objectives and boundary conditions for urban social and ecological environment
management.

2. QUANTIFICATION OF BIRD HABITAT, BIRD COMMUNITY AND LOCAL RESIDENTS
OPINIONS
The research area was established from Kamo Bridge to Sanjo Bridge in Kamo River, Kyoto City. The area
was divided into eight sections using the weirs as a border. In section one the uppermost edge of the section was
defined based on the position of the delta tip where Kamo River and Takano River merge.
a)Quantification method
The quantification method is introduced in three parts; first the habitat and second the bird community andthird a social survey. This method is seen as a survey process of Systems Analysis approach methodology forwater resources and environment management system.
b) Environmental quantification method
Open Water: water within the river channel
Weir: area from top step to bottom step of weir
Vegetated Bar: bar structure covered with vegetation
Bare bar: bar structure without vegetation
Bank: concreted, inclined area leading into river channel
Side: flat area alongside the bankFigure One. A schematic map of six main habitat categories in a section of Kamo River.

Aerial photographs and GIS data were taken of the study sites on 9th October 2006. Using this data six
habitat categories likely to be required by the aquatic bird species were selected (Figure One). Measurements ofeach of the habitats were made using the GIS software ArcMapc)

Bird Community quantification method
Bird community observations were made from 10th June 2006 to 27th May 2007 from the river side in eachsection either using the naked eye or binoculars. The site was surveyed 15 times. Using maps of each section
records were made of the location of each individual or group of birds found on the river, the species and numberof individuals.
d) Social quantification method
In November 2006 a survey was undertaken of residents of Suemarucho to discover their feelings towards
the Kamo River environment, especially considering their likes and dislikes.

3. EXAMINATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONa) Geographical characteristics of Kamo RiverEightSanjoBridgeSeven

Nijo Bridge

SixFive

Marutamachi Bridge

FourThree

Kamo Bridge

TwoOneFigure Two. Schematic map showing proportion of six main habitat categories in each section

The composition of each section is different (Figure Two). Section 1 has the smallest total area and has asmallest proportion of side (19%) and bank (4%). Section 7 had the largest proportion of bare bar structures (5%),
in comparison sections 2 and 8 had no bare bar. Section 7 had the smallest proportion of vegetated bar (7%).
Sections 1 and 2 had the largest proportion of vegetated bar structures (22% and 23% respectively). The
proportion of weir varied from 1% in section 5 to 10% in section 1. Finally, the proportion of open water varied
from 34% in section 3 to 44% in both sections 1 and 7.

b) Distribution patterns of bird community
There were two distinct bird communities, the residential birds which were present throughout the year andthe migratory species which were present only in winter. The number of residential birds did not varysignificantly between the seasons when migratory birds were present or not (Figure Three). Thus most of theseasonal changes in numbers of birds were due to variations of migratory species. There was an increasing
abundance of individuals in the lower sections with both the residential and migratory species with the exceptionof section 7 which is shorter in length.

350

600

300

500

250
200
150
100400Figure Three. Number of Individuals recorded in Kamo River per survey
300 (upper) and per section (lower). Lines on bars
signify species. Gray sections represent residential species and white200
sections represent migratory species.
100500023456710/0629 /20/0 06612 /20/0 06
805 /20/0 06
905 /20/1 06
004 /20/1 06
110 /20/1 06
123 /20/1 06
118 /20/1 06
229 /20/1 06
226 /20/0 06
112 /20/0 07
227 /20/0 07
314 /20/0 07
427 /20/0 07
5/2007

1Figure Three. The distribution of bird communities in relation to time period and section number with the number of birds
on the Y-axis. Each division of the bars shows a species. Shaded sections are residential species and un-shaded sections aremigratory species.

c)Relationship between bird communities and habitats
We considered the habitat requirements of species that were recorded more than 20 times during theresearch period (Table one).
WeirWigeon
MallardSpot-billed duck
PintailGreen-winged teal
Little egret
Great white egretGray heronBlack-crowned night heron
Japanese wagtail
White wagtail
Black-headed gull

31
21
6
13
88
39
16
24
14
17
1125

Open
Water
342
332
172
141
32
101
2236
228
8432

Veg BarBare BarBankSide

58
44
27
10
41
1336
1
14316
31
33
120
13013424120

610000311830
800100000001550Table One. The habitat usage of each species recorded more than 20 times in the research period.

8(1) Ducks: Most duck species, with the exception of green-winged teal, were mostly found in open water. The
green-winged teal was the only species mostly found in weir. The second most favourite habitat for ducks
was vegetated bar. Spot-billed ducks, mallards and pintails were also found largely on bare bar structures.
All duck species were found in the weir area but only wigeons were recorded on the bank. This shows awidespread usage of different habitats by different duck species.
(2) Herons: Little egret and great white egret all showed a preference to open water. Gray heron showed anequal usage of open water and vegetated bars which was the second favourite habitat used by little egret.
Both had used weir as third favourite. The second most used habitat structure for the great white egret wasweir followed by vegetated bars in third. The black-crowned night heron was mostly found in the weir andthen on the bank structures. We hypothesize the difference is due the the shorter leg length of this bird
which makes it unsuitable for standing in the river channel.
(3) Wagtails: Japanese wagtail showed a wide usage of habitats being found in abundance in all six habitat
categories. Its main usage was bank then open water then bare bar. White wagtails were mostly found inbare bar then bank then open water. In comparison to the other aquatic bird species the wagtails move fromplace to place rapidly, which is reflected in their wide usage of different habitats.
(4) Black-headed gulls: These were largely found in open water and weir. As this species nests at a different site
they are only found at Kamo River during the daytime for feeding.
d) Comparing the abundance of bird species with likes and dislikes of local residents
Number of Individuals of Each Species Recorded
558Black-headed gull - Larus ridibundus <yurikamome>
498

Wigeon - Anas Penelope <hidorigamo>
429

Mallard - Anas platyrhynchos <magamo>
238

Spot-billed duck - Anas poecilorhyncha <karugamo>
197

Little egret - Egretta garzetta <kosagi>
167

Pintail - Anas acuta <onagagamo>
Japanese wagtail - Motacilla grandis <segurosekirei>

128

Green-winged teal - Anas crecca <kogamo>

120
102

Gray heron - Ardea cinerea <aosagi>
52

Great white egret - Egretta alba <daisagi>

Do you like or dislike the following bird groups?
Ducks

48

Herons45

White wagtail - Motacilla alba <hakusekirei>

37

Gulls

Black-crowned night heron - Nycticorax nycticorax <goisagi>

29

Kingfishers

35

23

Wagtails

33

Little grebe - Podiceps ruficollis <kaitsuburi>
Plover - Charadrius spp. <chidori>

7Cormorants

Gray wagtail - Motacilla cinerea <kisekirei>3Plover

Great cormorant - Phalacrocorax carbo <kawau>

3Common kingfisher - Alcedo atthis <kawasemi>

20418200

2LikeDislike

12130100

211020300
T otal Number of Individuals

Figure Four. Number of Each bird species recorded and Results of Social Survey (inset)

30400

4050500

60600

Finally we will consider the viewpoint of riverside residents towards the Kamo River environment and thebird communities. The social survey showed that local residents are happy to live near Kamo River (60 agree, 0disagree) indicating it is seen as a positive environment overall.
The most common species recorded were black-headed gull and wigeon (Figure Four) which are bothmigratory species. There were 5 species of duck (wigeon, mallard, spot-billed duck, pintail and green-wingedteal), as a group they comprised 52% of individuals recorded. Local residents also showed the most interest inducks (48 likes, 0 dislikes). The heron group comprised 4 species (little egret, gray heron, great white egret andblack-crowned night heron), as a group they comprised 14% of individuals recorded. Local residents alsoshowed a lot of interest in herons (45 likes, 2 dislikes). The wagtail group comprising 3 species (Japanesewagtail, white wagtail and gray wagtail) comprised 6% of individuals. They were also viewed favorably (33likes, 0 dislikes). Excluding these groups the rarest species recorded were common kingfisher and great
cormorant with 2 and 3 individuals recorded respectively. Despite being rare the local residents showed a lot ofinterest in these species viewing the kingfishers favorably (35 likes, 0 dislikes) but with mixed opinions ofcormorants (13 likes, 12 dislikes).
e) Comparing the river environment with the likes and dislikes of local residents
What gives you the greatest sense of changing
season?

When do you like most at Kamo River?

Vegetation

47Spring
18

Autumn42

Surrounding mountains

38

13

SummerBirds

25

8WinterAnnual events
0

10

2030

40

650

0

How do you feel about the weirs?

10203040

50

Do you think the river management is enough?

28

Beautiful

Yes

14Interesting

27

4

Ugly

No

21

1Fun
0

102030

40

50

01020

30

4050

Figure Five. Feelings of riverside residents towards the Kamo River environment.

Riverside residents ranked birds as the third most common feeling of seasonal change (Figure Five). This isconsistent with our ecological survey as the aquatic bird species showed a large change between seasons as aresult of winter migratory species. However the riverside residents said their favorite season was spring. This isthe season when aquatic birds are fewest. Winter which has the most abundant numbers of birds and species was
the least favorite season. This shows while the residents showed an interest in birdlife there are other factors
which influence their feelings more towards the riverside as a whole.
Overall the riverside residents responded positively to the weirs. Most felt the weirs were beautiful orinteresting with only 2 respondents saying they were ugly. As the weirs were used as a habitat by many bird
species this result shows an agreement between social perspective and ecological perspective from the viewpointof birds. Slightly more than half the residents felt riverside management was enough but a significant number
felt it was not enough (27 agree, 21 disagree). As such we can say many residents have a desire for greater
riverside management.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Until now environmental management research took on a natural scientific approach and a social scientificapproach which were used separately. This research combines two approaches: the distribution of bird
communities in respect to habitat distribution and a survey of local residents focusing on contact points of socioand eco riverside. The riverside residents have mostly positive feelings towards aquatic birds. They have a lot ofinterest in abundant bird species and like them. Not only that but they also had a lot of interest and positivefeelings towards migratory birds and rare bird species. This shows for local residents the presence of these birds
increases the value of the riverside environment.
The Kamo River environment, despite having artificial flood control structures such as weirs and concretebanking, supports a large aquatic bird community which is mostly seen favorably by the local residents. Theseweirs and banking are seen favorably by the local residents not just from perspective of flood control but asadding beauty to the riverside environment and are often used as a habitat by the bird communities.
However many residents feel the riverside management is not adequate. This reflects dissatisfaction withother aspects of the riverside environment. As current management practices have created a mostly positiveenvironment for the bird communities we must consider what impact changes in management may have on
aquatic bird communities and their habitats in the future and how this relates to the social system.

5. REFERENCES
Frissel C.A. et al, 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in awatershed context. Environmental Management Vol.10, No. 2, pp. 199-214
US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980. Ecological Services Manual – Habitat as a Basis for Environmental
Assessment
Hagihara Y. and Sakamoto M., 2006 Conflict Management. Keiso Shobo
Hagihara Y., Hagihara K., and Takahashi K. 1998. Urban Environment and Waterside Planning. Keiso Shobo